Ethical Dilemmas: The Moral Status Of Animals

The Moral Status of Animals The ethical treatment of animals is a hotly debated concept with many views on how animals should be treated varying across the spectrum. The primary concern behind the vast majority of these debates comes from how we view the moral standing of animals. Generally these can be grouped into three distinct categories, moral equality, direct but unequal, and finally indirect theories (Willson, 2015). In this paper I will attempt to briefly explore and give consideration to all of these areas and some of the differing viewpoints within them.

First let’s explore the indirect theory of morality. An indirect approach relies on denying animals the same or any moral status as humans are given. Emanuel Kant would have been

One such argument is against the species-norm account of species based moral standing. From the viewpoint of McMahan, a child born with anencephaly, absence of a major portion of the brain, is not in fact experiencing misfortune. He argues that no moral compensation is required due to the fact that this being has no capacity for well-being to begin with (McMahan, 1996). This goes against the species-norm account, which would require the same standing regardless of condition, given to all members of a species.

The final account of animals’ moral standing is that of the equal theory. The equal theory puts all animals as both having moral status and being on the same level as humans are. So as such any duties or obligations that someone has to another person, they will likewise have to all animals (Willson, 2015). A key figure in the promotion of equality between animals and humans is Peter Singer. Singers approach to philosophy is through the utilitarian school, and proposes that the greatest good of the greatest number is the only measure of ethical